August 29, 2006

John Hawkins, worried about the progress Rudy Giuliani is making toward the presidency, spells out the reasons a conservative should oppose him. I expect this to be a list of reasons why I should prefer him. Let's me check it out.

Trying to scare me with this picture?

Sorry! It doesn't work. Rudy's "soft on gay marriage"? Amongst conservatives, that means he's not sufficiently against it. I know plenty of people who might use that expression to mean he's not sufficently in favor of it. I like a candidate in the middle on this issue.

What's the rest of Hawkins's case against Giuliani? He's "strongly pro-abortion." Now, now, nobody's "pro-abortion." It really is a matter of believing the government should stay out of the individual's life when it comes to the decision whether to go through a pregnancy. "Pro-choice" may be a euphemism, but it expresses something important. A non-euphemistic way to put it: pro abortion rights.

Hawkins faults Giuliani for accepting some gun control and for taking a moderate position on immigration. These aren't my issues. I see other people getting fired up or manipulated over them. I just want sensible people to make sophisticated policy decisions.

Hawkins raises the question of the nasty divorce, and I agree that looks bad. It would be better to have someone who's squeaky clean, but I don't think it should be disqualifying, because you will exclude too many of the vigorous, virile men if you get too prissy here.

Finally, Hawkins argues the electability point:

[A]s a candidate, he offers almost nothing to social conservatives, without whom a victory for George Bush in 2004 wouldn't have been possible. If the choice in 2008 comes down to a Democrat and a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, left-of-center candidate on social issues -- like Rudy -- you can be sure that millions of "moral values voters" will simply stay home and cost the GOP the election.

The other issue is in the South. George Bush swept every Southern state in 2000 and 2004, which is quite an impressive feat when you consider that the Democrats had Southerner Al Gore at the top of the ticket in 2000 and John Edwards as the veep in 2004. Unfortunately, a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, pro-gun control RINO from New York City just isn't going to be able to repeat that performance. Even against a carpetbagger like Hillary Clinton, it's entirely likely that you'll see at least 2 or 3 states in the South turn from red to blue if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee.

Also, the reason why George Bush's approval numbers have been mired in the high thirties/low forties of late is because he has lost a significant amount of Republican support, primarily because his domestic policies aren't considered conservative enough. Since that's the case, running a candidate who is several steps to Bush's left on domestic policy certainly doesn't seem like a great way to unite the base again.

This makes sense, undeniably. But what about the potential to appeal to people like me who are in the middle? What I like about Giuliani is his ability to embody the strong national security position and to argue for it in clear, persuasive terms, without bringing along that social conservative baggage. All those people who vote for Democrats, are they doing it because they are into the party and all it seems to stand for? Or are they put off by the social conservatives on the other side? The social conservatives like Hawkins want Republicans to be afraid to find out.

IN THE COMMENTS: Paul A'Barge writes:

I'm not in the middle. I'm so far to the right, I have a neck ache from trying to see what the DIMocRATs are up to. And, I'd vote for Rudy in a nanosecond.

Rudy has heart and he has a pair.

As a country, we can figure out the abortion, gay, and immigration thing. But, we can't survive without someone who gives at least enough of a fig to be willing to slaughter our enemies.

Rudy turned down that money from that Saudi monster. To me, he beats even GWB on security.

Bring it on, Rudy. I'm there for you!

That's important. I voted for Bush because of national security even though he didn't satisfy me on the social issues. I'm glad to see it works the other way around.

80 comments:

My problems with Rudy have to do with his arrogance, he comes off as a jerk. I remember him saying something about the rest of the country should take NYC's garbage and waste products because it produces so many cultural gems. (I have seen crap like Cats, that was exporting garbage, not culture)

However, I do believe he would be very electable in a general election. He got many of the country's most liberal voters to pull the lever for him, so he should be able to pick off a few blue states, particularly in the north. I think most conservatives would get behind him because of his foreign policy and that he is a true hardass when it comes to crime. Besides, if Hillary were his competetion, that alone would scare conservatives into voting for Rudy.

Does Hawkins prefer Newt Gingrich? If he's complaining about Rudy's nasty divorce, can he overlook Newt's even less tasteful one(s)?

I love the criticsm that Rudy moved in with a wealthy gay couple after his divorce. What's the implication of that line to a hard-line social conservative, I wonder? To me, it's that he moved in with friends who offered a place to stay.

I'm guessing if Rudy wins the nomination, he'd pick an arch-conservative as VP to throw people like Hawkins a bone. So Hawkins could ignore the president on the ballot, and people like Ann, or me (depending on who the democrats field) could ignore the VP.

"Now, now, nobody's "pro-abortion." It really is a matter of believing the government should stay out of the individual's life when it comes to the decision whether to go through a pregnancy. "Pro-choice" may be a euphemism, but it expresses something important. A non-euphemistic way to put it: pro abortion rights."

Sadly, you're wrong. The vast majority of pro choice folks do meet this description, but there are people I've argued with who regard abortion as a positive good that helps suppress the number of unwanted births. Not many, to be sure, but there are some.

But on the other hand, I really can't bring myself to feel much sympathy for pro-choice folks who complain that their position is being simplified and misrepresented while complaining about how pro-life folks are "anti choice." That is no more nor less an oversimplification of the pro life position than "pro abortion" is an oversimplification of the (mainstream) pro choice position. To be pro life, you have to believe that it is not simply a matter of choice, while to be pro choice you have to believe that it is not a matter of life and death.

I've never voted for a Republican in my life, and I never will, and that includes RG. That said, he's the sort of GOPer that scares the bejeezus out of many Democrats (including me). He'd win most of the red states, but more important, he'd win NY. That alone is enough to offset losing a few states in the Deep South.

Dave wrote: [Rudy Giuliani] appears to evoke more loathing on either side of the dial than Wife of Slick Willie.

Which probably means he's right smack in the middle of the spectrum. Being neither this or that, both this and that despise him, for not falling in line and choosing a side. OTOH, if he can get through the primaries, he has a large potential upside for that very reason.

Before 9/11, Rudi would be a hard pill for southerners, including myself, to swallow. Post 9/11, I've noticed a change among my more conservative friends and relatives. Rudi has become at least conceivable as a presidential candidate.

P. Froward wrote: [Rudi]'ll take all their money and waste it on pointless crap.

I guess this distinguishes him from our current President in that Bush borrows vaults full of money and wastes it on pointless crap. I hate to say it, but Andrew Sullivan is right that at some point there will have to be tax increases to pay for Bush's spending spree.

If the Republicans run anyone other than Giuliani, I will vote for the Democratic candidate unless the Democrat is Hillary. In such a case, I'll vote third party. It's time for social conservative bigots like John Hawkins (& Simon and Gahrie) to realize the Republican party does not belong to them.

the pooka said..."I've never voted for a Republican in my life, and I never will, and that includes RG ... he's the sort of GOPer that scares the bejeezus out of many Democrats (including me). He'd win most of the red states, but more important, he'd win NY."

(I'm amused, by the way, that you think that THE most left-wing prominent Republican, with the possible exception of Lincoln Chafee, is the SORT of GOP'er that scares the bejeezus out of you. Saying that he's the kind of Republican who you can't abide implies there's another kind - if Giulliani isn't close enough to the middle (which is to say, to the left of the GOP mainstream) for you, who on Earth is?

Simon, you're just being obtuse. It's not that Giuliani is too conservative that the pooka dislikes him, it's that Giuliani has a chance to pick up a blue state like New York if he were to run. But then again, you are so good at reading people's minds, aren't you? Sorta like pro-choice means wanting to kill babies for population control? That is a vicious lie and you know it.

One really strong issue for Guiliani is his capacity as an administrator -- here he can run against Bush's perceived failures in homeland security and emergency management and beat back the Democrats best line of attack.

tcd said..."It's time for social conservative bigots like John Hawkins (& Simon and Gahrie) to realize the Republican party does not belong to them."

I am vastly amused that you think that I'm a social conservative. Could you tell the people who really are social conservatives that you think I'm a social conservative? Maybe that way they'll stop calling me a RINO! LMAO!

You seem to think that I'm part of the social conservative right wing fringe that is running this party. They, however, would beg to differ. The kind of people you're talking about are not generally concerned with climate change; I am. The kind of people you're talking about are not sympathetic to homosexual marriage; I am. Moreover, my support for W was tacit at best in the last election; I favor strong enforcement of antitrust laws more economic regulation than most conservatives would; I'm sympathetic towards feminism; my view of the powers of the President (both descriptively and normatively) are very circumscribed; I'm not a Christian; I would abolish (or at least suspend) the death penalty; I don't have nearly as much a problem with the Warren Court's rulings on criminal procedural rights as most conservatives do; I'm not hostile to the progressive income tax; I think conservative flame-baiters like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage do the body politick more harm than good (and just as much harm as Michael Moore and pals).

You're absolutely right, TCD, the Republican Party does not belong to people me - and that's because I'm a moderate, and we are not running the show. Believe me when I say that I don't like this any more than you do, but for better or worse, I'm a RINO.

Icepick, I sometimes cynically wonder if the Republicans will sacrifice the Presidency in '08 so a Democrat has to shoulder the blame for the inevitable tax increases -- increases that I think should be called the George Bush Legacy Tax Increase. Then, perhaps, Republicans can try to reclaim the mantle of the fiscally responsible party.

Of course, I thought the same of Wisconsin when Doyle was elected --- but he confounded the Republicans and didn't raise taxes.

tcd said..."[P]ro-choice means wanting to kill babies for population control? That is a vicious lie and you know it."

If you think that's what I wrote, then you need to learn to pay more attention when reading. I explicitly stated that the overwhelming majority of people who are pro choice meet Ann's definition (i.e. "pro abortion rights" rather than "pro abortion"), and went on to point out - accurately - that there is a small minority whose stance is pro abortion, just as there are, no doubt, some people who are anti-abortion (and who are only in the fight because they are misogynist pigs who want to control women's lives) rather than being pro-life in the strict sense.

Icepick said..."at some point there will have to be tax increases to pay for Bush's spending spree."

Or at very least, spending cuts. If I max out my credit cards and get a massive mortgage, I suppose it might be a reasonable strategy to ask my boss for a raise, but even assuming that works (which it may well not), it isn't going to solve anything until I get my spending habit under control. It's not that taxes need to be raised, it's that spending needs to be cut.

In the proposal you blogged about a couple of months ago, the idea was that a handful of the largest states would agree among themselves that they would pledge their electors to whomever won the popular vote. That scheme, you concluded, and I think we all agree, violates Art. I §10, because it is ineluctably an agreement or compact between states.

But the scheme that has now passed the California legislature (more on this point in a moment) is a different animal entirely. This scheme simply awards California's electors who whomever wins the popular vote nationally. By definition, it cannot offend Art. I §10, because it is not an agreement or compact with any other state - rather, it is a unilateral exercise of the state legislature's Art. I §1 power. My Stubborn Facts co-blogger Pat and I disagree on this point: he thinks that is it is unconstitutional, I do not. To me, the fact that it is unilateral is dispositive: California has made no agreement with any other state, and so if this law is unconstitutional, it is not unconstitutional under §10.

Now, there is one really interesting point about all this, and that is the question of whether this law is already operative. It has been passed by both chambers of the California legislature, and has apparently been sent to the Governor for approval. But even if Schwarzennegger were inclined to veto this action, I say that he cannot. Art. II explicitly confers upon the legislative authority of the state the power of appointment (cf. McPherson, 146 U.S. at 25) ("the legislature possesses plenary authority to direct the manner of appointment"), and the Constitution recognizes several times that there the legislative and executive branch are separate at the state level by conferring certain powers and responsibilities on state legislatures, and other certain powers and responsibilities on state Governors. See Art. I §2 ("[w]hen vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies"); Art. I §3 ("if vacancies happen ... during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments"); Art. IV §2 ("[a] person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime"). It seems plain to me that the framers regarded the executive and legislative branches as being separate, and throughout the Constitution confer certain powers on specific branches of state government, which would seem to imply that once both chambers of California's legislature passes this bill - which it has - it becomes operational with or without the governor's signature. This would also seem to apply to Constitutional amendments, in defiance of the laws of Wyoming and Rhode Island (see The geography of a failed amendment). So it seems to me that California HAS done this, and that it IS constitutional - which ironically enough would have thrown California to Bush in '04 and may now throw California to the GOP in 2008.

This is wy we always read the legislation before posting, children. Having had a chance to actually read what appears to be the bill in question is AB 2948 (PDF warning), I have misunderstood: this is not a unilateral (and thus constitutional, albeit foolish) action by California, it is legislation enabling the very proposal we all agreed a couple of months ago was unconstitutional. If that's the bill, then I must recant and eat crow (although I would still maintain that Art. II and Art. V's grants of power to state legislatures deny the power of states to give governors a veto).

It just goes to show: don't trust secondary reporting of what legislation says - use the source, Luke!

MadisonMan wrote: Icepick, I sometimes cynically wonder if the Republicans will sacrifice the Presidency in '08 so a Democrat has to shoulder the blame for the inevitable tax increases -- increases that I think should be called the George Bush Legacy Tax Increase. Then, perhaps, Republicans can try to reclaim the mantle of the fiscally responsible party.

That dog will never hunt again, at least not while the social conservatives are running the party. I'm a Republican, as are many of my friends, and we can't even pretend our party is fiscally responsible anymore, or even that the Dems would be worse.

Still, the party won't roll over in 2008 just to stick it to the Dems. Daddy Bush held his nose and raised taxes, so would the next Republican president, if s/he were to get elected. Plus, The Evil Genius Karl Rove aside, do you really think any of the party leadership is that smart? Magic 8-Ball says: Signs point to "No!"

Of course, I thought the same of Wisconsin when Doyle was elected --- but he confounded the Republicans and didn't raise taxes.

No chance for a Democratic president to do that. At the very least one campaign promise would be to up taxes on the higher tax brackets.

I'm a staunchly social conservative, but I would step on my own mother to vote for Rudy. I think there are notable parallels between him and Schwartzenegger, and even though Arnie is a social moderate in many ways, he has held true to GOP values so steadfastly that it overrides any skepticism I would have over him not being socially conservative enough.

I think social conservatives (with the possible exception of abortion) need to take a more libertarian stance anyway. Instead of using government to impose their belief system on the masses (the way liberals do), it shouldn't be involved, period.

Simon wrote: It's not that taxes need to be raised, it's that spending needs to be cut.

Perhaps some of the pork could be cut. And maybe even reduce military spending by getting out of Iraq one way or another. But the Medicare drug benefit? That is an entitlement, and it won't be cut until the Chinese Central Bank owns the whole country and states that it will not allow this foolish entitlement spending to continue.

Truly, entitlement spending is going to sink the country, and it can't be stopped. We can't even get minor reforms passed for Social Security. Nope, we're doomed on the spending front, it's just a question of when the collapse will happen.

I fondly recall in the comments of an Althouse post posted shortly after the last prez election where the blogmaster wondered if it wasn't too soon to contemplate the next prez election, that I was, ahem, "smoking crack" for thinking Giuliani had any chance of being taken seriously as a presidential candidate. At least one or two other commentors piled on.

I'm not sure where those commentors are now or how to find that post in the piles of old posts, but I'm taking this opportunity to point out that it appears I was right and they were wrong. Giuliani *is* being taken seriously as a presidential candidate. So, nyah, nyah.

SteveR said..."If RG causes some red state to go blue over social issues (and I'm not seeing it)..."

Well, just flipping Florida would do it. It's not really a question of SoCons voting for HRC, it's a question of them not showing up at all, and with Florida, you'd really only need two, maybe three percent of the Republicans who voted in '04 to not show up and you could see a Democrat win Florida. However, I do agree that there are a handful of blue states that a nominee like McCain or Gilliani could win that a nominee like Newt Gingrich couldn't - Wisconsin and Minnesota spring to mind. And of course, Giulliani could potentially win New York (I think that's unlikely, but let's not rule it out).

Icepick said..."Daddy Bush held his nose and raised taxes, so would the next Republican president, if s/he were to get elected"

Lincoln - despite the allegatioons of my apparent social conservatism from TCD (who apparently has not met any social conservatives if she thinks I'm one), I could support a pro choice nominee if that nominee were anti-Roe and was trustworthy on the issue of Judges. Process matters; I'm opposed to abortion, but I radily admit that any state is free under the Constitution to ban or permit it as it sees fit; a President willing to appoint the right kind of judges, even one who would veto that narrow class of federal action on abortion that I'd consider valid, is one I could vote for.

Icepick - readily agree that entitlement spending is what is dragging us down, and I also share your scepticism that that leak can be plugged (to paraphrase Reagan, a government entitlement is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth), but I would argue that it must be. There are various ways - some more brutal than others - that the link between taxation and spending could be made more vivid (I personally favor replacing the tax code with a very simple formula: the CBO would divide the previous year's actual spending into the total number of elligible taxpayers, and sending everyone a bill for their share. I absolutely guarantee you, the welfare state as we know it today would disappear within one election cycle). That's going to be tough to accomplish, but we've got to find a way to do it. Raising taxes won't help and may well hinder.

There is no surer way to determine if someone is a Republican or a Democrat: ask them if the way to tackle the budget deficit is to cut spending or raise taxes. If they say raise taxes, they're a Democrat, whether they usually prefer to put a D or an R after their name.

As far as I can tell Giuliani is essentially a technocrat without strong principles on many issues and with authoritarian tendencies. He does seem to be principled and sensible about national defense. Despite his failings he was a good NYC mayor at a time when the realistic alternatives were all much worse. (I don't think much of his administrative and political skill, BTW. He was unable to stare down the NYC municipal unions. Why should we expect him to do better with federal bureaucracies?) I would much prefer a principled conservative or libertarian president, but I would vote for Giuliani over any of the likely Democratic candidates, because none of these Democrats is serious about national defense.

I like Rudy. In my opinion, his weakest point is illegal immigration - and I don't think that it's just the social conservatives or isolationists who take this issue seriously. I think for most Americans, it is their issue - just look at how Buchanan's book is selling. I don't see how you can be strong on national security and weak on illegal immigration. Btw, I think Bush's position on this issue contributes a lot to his low approval ratings.

MadisonMan - I really don't. If you raise taxes, you will lower revenues because of the slowing of the economy thereby engendered. We need higher revenues, ergo, we need to grow the economy to increase revenues.

People don't understand what a bureaucratic hell hole NYC and NY state are. Getting anything done is next to impossible and Rudy got things done. I think he could handle DC. And he was elected twice although people who hate him here in NYC like to say before 9/11 he was unpopular. Those are the people who miss pre-Guliani NYC where it was common to find needles in parks, prostitutes would break into cars to have sex with their johns and times square was sleezy and scary (I am sorry, but people walking up to you asking your date if he wants a ___job? I can do without, thank you!). Those people, some of them friends of mine, miss the "grit" and call graffitti art. Their looney in my book.

I don't have the specifics in front of me. He lowered taxes, gave incentives to companies who were leaving the city in droves to set up shop in NJ or CT and lowered the taxes on things like hotels and other things that bring corporate conferences to NY.

I used to think that the 3rd marriage would be a problem with Peoria, but perhaps after the Clinton's that wouldn't matter as much (MYOB thing). I am happy that Judy got him to get rid of the combover and embrace his bald noggin.

Finally, he did a great job at the last convention. I was there in person, so I don't know how it played on TV, but he was charming, and smart. Very positive feeling. I think that will translate nationally to a positive response as well.

Not to be too flippant about it, but I think I'd vote for him based on the drag photo alone.

We have too many politicians who take themselves far too seriously. Consider John Kerry, for example --the ultimate in pomposity and condescension. Can you take that photo and imagine him in it? (The mind boggles at that image.)

Giuliani's many talents include the ability to let himself be seen as a human being with the normal range of human traits, from the admirable to the ridiculous.

Simon, I'm not an elected representative, so I don't need to come up with ideas, but what the heck. I would implement a flat tax with no deductions. Good bye to mortgage interest deductions: why should the US govt subsidize huge mansions? I'd tax gasoline -- maybe $1 or $2 a gallon? If this drives down consumption, and causes the price to fall, and starves, oh, Venezuela or Iran or Saudi Arabia of cash, all the better. I'd curtail highway spending, and divert more money to more efficient (fuel-wise) trains. That would mean investing in rail infrastructure. Subsidies for airport building? Gone. No pensions for workers in the House/Senate if the budget isn't in a surplus (as determined by someone trustworthy, not OMB). You want to get a govt contract? You better not be an offshore company and you better pay taxes. Simpler to do since there's a flat tax. Sorry if you're an accountant or a tax lawyer. I'd consider a surcharge if it were used only to pay down the debt. We can call it the George Bush Debt Tax Increase.

I'd withdraw much of the military from S. Korea and Germany. Close more bases in the US. We'll still be in Iraq when I'm elected President in '08 -- Bush has said so -- so I'm gonna yank the troops out of there. Do you think they can do much more post 2008 that hasn't been done by then? That'll save some coin. No more Social Security payments if you don't need them -- why give money to people making, oh, $150K a year in pensions? That money goes instead to pay down the debt. I would offer a Federal health plan for all -- saving all those companies lots of health care $$ -- but taxing them, of course, for the (cough) privilege.

I wonder if I can be elected on this platform, if I swear I'll be completely against abortion, adamantly anti-gay and anti-immigration and pro-Gun and pro-vouchers. I think it might work, as social conservatives don't apparently give a tinker's curse about fiscal responsibility. That's why we got where we are today. I recall surpluses just -- what -- 3 trillion dollars in debt ago?

Giuliani was a prosecutor before he was a mayor. This is why most lefty NY'ers hated him, and why the working classes loved him. It's also why he is pro-gun control and agnostic on many issues dear to certain social conservatives. Gay marriage, abortion, etc don't impact the safety and order of society in the way that crime and shuttered businesses do, according to his way of thinking. I would suggest that out-of-control borders and illegal immigration do impact society, but such thinking is anathema to multi-culti NY'ers.

My younger sister and brother are both hardrock Baptist social conservatives and they would both vote for Giuliani enthusiastically, even though he is not their fist choice. I'm mildly surprised by the number of such people I find like that when I go home to visit.

Madisonman, love some of your suggestions, but evidently you left your copy of the Constitution at home or somewhere. The president has pretty much zero power to do what you say you'd do.

I would, however, enjoy you describing just how much of your plan you think you could get by even a Democratic Congress (figure a small margin in the House and a very small margin in the Senate). Remember, they want to get re-elected.

I even agree with about half of your suggestions, I just see no way in the real world of getting hem enacted. Maybe you could, for instance, cap the mortgage deduction at the national median house price. You'd make the National Realtors Assoc incredibly angry, slow the housing market by a bunch, making the housing industry angry, etc, etc, etc.

I like a properly implemented flat tax. So, show me one that could get passed.

I think you'd be better off, in our system at least, concentrating on the remotely possible as opposed to the ludicrously impossible as the answer to fixing the budget gap.

You might want to click on 'The Skeptical Optimist' http://www.optimist123.com for an alternative take to yours.

MadisonMan-Surprisingly enough, I could support most of your first paragraph - or at least, I could support it enough to give you four years to give it a go, and we'll see where we are. ;) I disagree with most of your second paragraph, although I agree about social security and withdrawing the military from Europe.

If we went to a flat tax system, I'd say that each taxpayer would pay roughly eight or nine grand in tax (according to Census 2000, there are 209,128,094 persons over 18 in the United States. The Federal Budget for 2007 is 2,800,000,000,000. That's about $8,607 per taxpayer) - which suits me, since that's a tax cut for me, but for someone working minimum wage, you just raised their tax bill by $6939 per year.

If the choice comes down to McCain or Giuliani anybody who gives a damn about free speech, which should be EVERY conservative/libertarian, will choose Giuliani. If McCain wins the GOP primary I'll vote for anybody the dems run, including Hillary. Yeah, I'll vomit for a month, but still.

Harkonnendog -Because of course, Hillary's record on the issues on which conservatives disagree with McCain is much, much better, right?

I think it's unlikely I'll support McCain in the primary, because I share your scepticism of his understanding of the Constitution in general and the first amendment in particular, but I think anyone who would stay home -- or worse yet, vote democrat, or worse than that, vote third party -- is missing the big picture. Oppose him in the primary, but the blunt reality is that no matter how far from ideal might be a President McCain, it is hard to think of a democrat likely to get the nomination who would not be far, far worse.

Simon:"Well, just flipping Florida would do it. It's not really a question of SoCons voting for HRC, it's a question of them not showing up at all, and with Florida, you'd really only need two, maybe three percent of the Republicans who voted in '04 to not show up and you could see a Democrat win Florida"

Well I think there are many in Florida who'd vote for Rudy who didn't vote for Bush, but in the larger picture we agree, states like Wisconsin, Minnesota could easily swing with a candidate like Rudy

I explicitly stated that the overwhelming majority of people who are pro choice meet Ann's definition (i.e. "pro abortion rights" rather than "pro abortion"), and went on to point out - accurately - that there is a small minority whose stance is pro abortion

Simon's not just making that up, either -- that minority does exist, and I belong to it. I think it is a big mistake to bring unwanted children into the world, and as I don't think that a fetus counts as a sapient human being, I don't have a problem with aborting unwanted fetuses.

What percentage of the population feels that way, I have no idea about. I do know quite a lot of guys who support abortion rights more out of fear of fathering an unwanted child than out of respect for the right of women to control their own bodies, though. And certainly there are pro-choice arguments -- "what if your daughter was raped and became pregnant", etc -- that at least imply that there are circumstances in which abortion is a good thing.

Anyway, on the Rudy question, I have no idea whether he could win the Republican nomination -- but if he does, I can't think of a Democratic candidate he could lose to. He's got massive appeal among moderates as well as conservative hawks and law-and-order types.

Harkonnendog - people taking that attitude got us eight years of Clinton, and more importantly, people taking the attitude that Bush 41 had to be punished for some heresy or another got us Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steve Breyer. You really need to see the bigger picture here, or you are going to look back when President Biden appoints Michael Dorf to the Supreme Court and wonder what happened. We are one vote away from undoing a six-decade constitutional catastrophe; do not risk that project over small-fry questions. A Presidential election is the selection of the lesser of two evils, and it is inconceivable that John McCain - for all his undoubted faults and flaws - would be the greater evil on election day '08.

Steven said..."How did voting for Bush for national security reasons work out? Any second thoughts?"

I can't speak for Ann, but there's been no new terrorist attacks within our borders and we have a wonderful new Chief Justice and an excellent new Associate Justice, along with a gaggle of lower court judges to go with them. It's true that in other regards things haven't been as good as I'd prefer, but even at th very worst, they've sure worked out better than they would have done under President Kerry. So I'm far from suffering buyers remorse.

Revenant said..."Simon's not just making that up, either -- that minority does exist, and I belong to it."

If it's any consolation to TCD, I've had to eat crow over the CA electoral college law today, so you're not eating alone. Chow down.

There's a very simple issue/question for the conservative Republicans who previously supported and continue to support the war: What are your priorities?

Is the War on Terror more important than gay marriage, abortion, or other social issues?

This is the same question moderates/social liberals/libertarians were asked during the last presidential election cycle (and there's nothing wrong with that!)

It doesn't look like the next Dem candidate will be pro-war (given Kos & co.'s strength), so we need an effective, electable pro-war Republican nominee.

If social conservatives staged a revolt in the primaries, and pushed Rudy out of the way in favor of a social conservative who was less electable, there would be a number of very serious consequences.

First and most obvious, we might end up with an anti-war president, and for the next four years, an extremely critical time period, the war on terror would suffer.

Second, it would expose conservatives to charges of:1 - betrayal2 - hypocrisy3 - frivolity (in the face of the grave situations in Iran and Iraq)4 - having bad values in general

Third, the battles necessary to push Rudy out would probably involve a lot of divisive rhetoric that would probably be forgiven if the pro-war candidate won. But if he lost... that would destroy goodwill between war supporters, and would do incredible damage to the pro-war side in the critical years to come.

1 - I think the social conservatives know what is at stake and are serious about it.

2 - I'm not saying social conservatives must accept Rudy--if they can put forward an equally-electable candidate, and then win the primaries, moderate war supporters will once again be the ones obliged to suck it up and vote for what really matters.

While I understand the argument about him being appealing to the middle, he doesn't really have a way to recruit volunteers. The lack of volunteers in a campaign is why moderate Republicans so often lose campaigns.

For details of this and other arguments about Giuliani's viability see my blog at http://www.eyeon08.com

I'm a democrat, I voted for Gore. After 9/11 I was glad Bush won. I still hate all the social conservative baggage he brings (stem cells!) but national security comes first.

I like Lieberman.

I like Arnold.

I would vote for Rudy. He seems to share enough of my values, and isn't too hung up on many of them. Part of a candidates appeal is not only their positions on various issues but which issues they thing are important. Rudy knows national security and crime are more important than gay rights, abortion, and other things where the government is meddling in people's lives.

The funny thing to me is that Rudy is a republican. Thirty years ago he'd have been a Democrat. And that says more about the Democratic party than it does about Rudy.

Daryl Herbert said..."There's a very simple issue/question for the conservative Republicans who previously supported and continue to support the war: What are your priorities? Is the War on Terror more important than gay marriage, abortion, or other social issues?"

That's actually not quite as simple a question as you suggest. To my mind, in a Presidential election, the war on terror is vastly more important an issue than gay marriage, abortion, or other social issues, because I believe that the President's role in those issues is practically none. The role of the Federal government in this issues should be as close to none as possible, and what role is to be played in them is primarily withon the domain of Congress. it's not quite that simple a question: those are all important questions, but it's like asking whether you prefer to put diesel or gas in your car. The obvious answer is that it depends which car you're driving! There is a different right answer depending on what you're driving, and one has different priorities when voting for a mayor vs. a Congressman, and when voting for a state legislator vs. a President.

IMO, for the President, yes, the GWOT is more important than those social issues. But, on the other hand, is the war on terror more important than a candidate's views on the role of the judiciary? No, absolutely not. As Lincoln reminded us:

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. "

Five Supreme Court Justices can do more damage to this country than every terrorist Al Queda can ever recruit. Terrorists can blow up our buildings, but the Constitution, the very fabric of the polity, is beyond their reach.

I'm don't want to punish McCain, I just want to make sure he doesn't win because he is an enemy of free speech. And the Supreme Court is the biggest reason I fear him. I have no doubt that he would nominate judges that think freedom of speech is less important than clean government, or some other such crap.

A Presidential election is the selection of the lesser of two evils, and it is inconceivable that John McCain - for all his undoubted faults and flaws - would be the greater evil on election day '08

When you average all of his positions, McCain may be the lesser evil. But there are some issues -- such as free speech -- where there arguably IS no "greater evil" currently active in national politics.

Basically, McCain has shown himself to be as unfit for the job of serving and protecting the Constititution as Ted Kennedy is for the job of designated driver. It doesn't matter if he's better on the issues -- he's unfit for elected office, and his opponent probably won't be.

Harkonen's right. We can argue all we want about how activist judges read things into the Constitution that aren't there, but I'm far more worried about McCain's habit of simply ignoring what IS there if it doesn't support his position. I'd rather see a questionable "right to privacy" read *into* the Constitution than see the first amendment read *out* of it.

For better or worse, I lack the myopia required to be a single issue voter. Winston Churchill noted that if Hitler invaded hell, Churchill would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. If the 2008 election were between any Democrat and the Devil himself, I would consider having a yard sign for the candidate with the cloven hooves.

McCain's view on the first amendment is antithetical to my own. It may even be wrong (although there is at very least an argument, no matter how unsatisfying or incorrect, that it is right; see S. Breyer, Active Liberty), but the bottom line is that while McCain may be deficient on the first amendment, anyone that the Democrats nominate is going to be just as deficient on that amendment (it was, after all, McCain-Feingold, and Senator Clinton supported it) and will conjoin that deficiency with utter contempt for the entirety of the rest of the constitution. You don't have to convince me that McCain is not an ideal candidate, but if he is the GOP's nominee in 2008, you'd have to be an idiot not to suck it up and support him.

This guy's got it all wrong. I sense wishful thinking, or scare tactics.

Paul D'Barge's, "Rudy has heart and he has a pair," says it all.

This country is at war. Social conservatives get this better than most. And they are concentrated in the South, which makes this, "Even against a carpetbagger like Hillary Clinton, it's entirely likely that you'll see at least 2 or 3 states in the South turn from red to blue if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee," laughable.

If Rudy gets the nod, Rudy wins. My concern is Rudy's health. Remember last time he was up against Hillary? (I'm not suggesting conspiracy. But it is weird.)

For better or worse, I lack the myopia required to be a single issue voter. Winston Churchill noted that if Hitler invaded hell, Churchill would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. If the 2008 election were between any Democrat and the Devil himself, I would consider having a yard sign for the candidate with the cloven hooves.

You do realize, don't you, that what Churchill meant by that is that he was a "single-issue voter" on the subject of opposition to Hitler -- he didn't care who you were or what you did, so long as you helped fight the Germans. And, indeed, you comments above indicate you yourself are a single-issue voter -- the issue in question being "are you a Democrat".

anyone that the Democrats nominate is going to be just as deficient on that amendment

McCain's hostility to the Bill of Rights goes way beyond his support for McCain-Feingold.

You don't have to convince me that McCain is not an ideal candidate, but if he is the GOP's nominee in 2008, you'd have to be an idiot not to suck it up and support him

Or intelligent enough to realize that the world will not end if Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election. Indeed, such an action might even shock the Republican establishment into nominating someone qualified for the job, just as the election of Carter did in 1976.

But in any case, John McCain isn't fit to be President. So it doesn't matter who he runs against -- unless that other person has also betrayed his or her oath to defend the Constitution, he or she will by definition be better-qualified than McCain is.

I'm a southern conservative. I could support Guiliani enthusiastically, despite my disagreement with him on numerous issues - all of which, an earlier commenter noted, are beyond the President's normal purview - and far more easily than I could ever support McCain, although for non-ideological reasons.

The United States Government is the largest enterprise in the world. It has an annual budget approaching $3 TRILLION and millions of employees. McCain has never run anything larger than his Senate staff, just like John Kerry.

There's a reason we often elect Governors and Generals, and Senators only rarely. It takes some administrative experience to run the government, and it is too important a position for on-the-job-training.

Guiliani was Mayor of New York, a city with a population larger than 39 states, and an economy larger than 42 - not including New York State minus NYC.

"indeed, you comments above indicate you yourself are a single-issue voter -- the issue in question being "are you a Democrat"."

I could vote for a Democrat if that Democrat had certain views on national security, the constitution and the judiciary. Richard Perle is a registered Democrat. John Hart Ely was a registered Democrat. If she had the right views on the judiciary, I would entertain the thought of voting for Stephanie Herseth. I don't think it's accurate to call me a single-issue voter, but I'll certainly concede that the Democratic party's views, in these times, have made partisans out of moderates.

"McCain's hostility to the Bill of Rights goes way beyond his support for McCain-Feingold."

And Hillary is better? Joe Biden is better? Chris Dodd is better? Your complaint about McCain is essentially that since he's got some surface tarnish, you'd be happier with something that is rotten through. That McCain has views on the Constitution and on immigration that are simply unacceptable is an ironclad argument to vote against him in the primary (unless his only opponent is someone who can't win the general; never say never, as they say), but when compared to the prospect of a President Biden, this is not a hard call to make.

Before the 2000 election, a lot of disgruntled Democrats convinced themselves that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, and that four years of Bush wouldn't be so bad. They absolutely believed that. How many Democrats do you think now believe there was no difference between Bush and Gore?

"McCain isn't fit to be President. So it doesn't matter who he runs against -- unless that other person has also betrayed his or her oath to defend the Constitution, he or she will by definition be better-qualified than McCain is."

Members of the United States Senate swear and oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Name a Democratic Senator who has not violated that oath. For that matter, name any Senator who has not violated that oath by virtue of voting for at least one clearly unconstitutional law.

"the world will not end if Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election"

Our Hero and Tony Kennedy are both seventy; they will be in the late 70s by January 20th, 2013, and their mid-eighties by January 20th, 2017. David Souter will be 73 by 1/20/2012, and 77 by 1/20/2017. Ruth Ginsburg with be 79 on 1/20/2013, and 83 on 1/20/2017. John Paul Stevens will be 92 by 1/20/2017, and 96 by 1/20/2017. And this is to say nothing of the Courts of Appeal. Even in the extraordinarily rosy circumstance of President Biden serving one term, it is inconceivable that he will not have the opportunity to appoint at least one Justice. It is possible s/he may get to appoint three. If they stay for a second term, it is likely they will appoint at least three and possible they may appoint five. John McCain is not my first choice, but I am not going to be responsible for Hillary Clinton appointing Antonin Scalia's replacement, and anyone who thinks their personal misgivings about McCain are more important than rescuing the Constitution from the liberals is simply off their rocker.

You are missing the big picture here. You are failing to grasp what is at stake, and it is a lot more than just what McCain thinks about the first amendment. The Justices appointed by the next President will be in a position to change how the first amendment - and anything else in the Constitution - applies to government for decades to come. Even if the Democrats nominate someone trustworthy on national security - itself highly doubtful - the issue of the courts is sufficient, freestanding, to demand they be defeated, a fortiori when everything else at stake is considered. See the big picture.

Simon, What the hell do I care if Revenent is pro-choice b/c he wants to use abortion as a means to control population growth? If that is his view then I say he's an asshole. His reasoning for abortion does not invalidate my reasoning.And Revenent,"I do know quite a lot of guys who support abortion rights more out of fear of fathering an unwanted child than out of respect for the right of women to control their own bodies, though." That makes them assholes like you then.

tcd said..."What the hell do I care if Revenent is pro-choice b/c he wants to use abortion as a means to control population growth? If that is his view then I say he's an asshole."

Well, I agree that, if that is his view, he's an asshole, but your case that I manufactured a strawman (which is already shaky if you had paid attention to what I actually wrote in my 8:05 AM, August 29 post) is obliterated if it turns out there is any non-zero number of people who are positively pro-abortion.

Your complaint about McCain is essentially that since he's got some surface tarnish, you'd be happier with something that is rotten through.

If you think having no respect for the Constitution is just "surface tarnish" (with "appointing judges you disagree with" presumably qualifying as "rotten through"), we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

but when compared to the prospect of a President Biden, this is not a hard call to make.

Not a hard call to make at all -- Biden's solid on defense and war on terrorism issues and superior on Constitutional issues. On the subject of the judiciary, I'd rather have a Biden judge who supports reading bogus rights (e.g., abortion) into the Constitution than a McCain judge who supports reading REAL rights OUT of the Constitution.

The Justices appointed by the next President will be in a position to change how the first amendment - and anything else in the Constitution - applies to government for decades to come.

Which is exactly why someone who hates the first amendment isn't going to get my vote for President.

What the hell do I care if Revenent is pro-choice b/c he wants to use abortion as a means to control population growth? If that is his view then I say he's an asshole.

I guess that makes the three women I know who've gotten abortions assholes, too, then, because they all had them because they didn't want the kids. Personally, I thought it was a good call on their part -- its the women who give birth and then abandon the kid or raise them poorly who are the assholes, in my view.

"I do know quite a lot of guys who support abortion rights more out of fear of fathering an unwanted child than out of respect for the right of women to control their own bodies, though." That makes them assholes like you then.

See, this is why the Republicans are winning. It isn't enough that I be on your side -- I must also be in lockstep agreement with your ideology, however nonsensical, or else I'm an asshole.

The funny thing is, most people who claim to believe in a right to control your own body don't really believe that -- if they did, we wouldn't have a drug war and prostitution would be entirely legal. The real reason most pro-choice people care about abortion rights is that they're afraid of they or people they know getting stuck with unwanted kids. Take away that fear and legalized abortion would be about as popular and mainstream a concept as legalized drugs are today.

Now as it so happens I honestly do believe in the right to bodily self-control, which is why I do support legalized drugs, prostitution, abortion, et al. But I also happen to think that there are many cases where abortion is not merely acceptable, but a really good idea -- which makes me not merely pro-choice, but pro-abortion as well.

And if that's too big a concept for your little brain to wrap itself around, well, you have my pity.

This is not true: "For better or worse, I lack the myopia required to be a single issue voter."

If McCain wanted to make child rape legal and have the fed encourage it you would vote against him for that alone. (I hope.)

Anyway, myopia, is the wrong word. Myopia is not realizing that without freedom of speech we don't have a democracy. Shortsightedness (same thing as myopia) is thinking a politician can create the most anti free speech legislation in the modern history of our country, but he should be trusted to pick SCOTUS judges.

There's a good Cato article on the McCain-led assault on free speech here. And let's not even get into his repeated pushes to censor and apply strict government supervision to the entertainment industry and the Internet, plus his support for all manner of drug-war related expansions of search and seizure powers.

This is the guy we're supposed to want appointing judges to the Supreme Court? What Supreme Court rulings of the last thirty years am I supposed to be bothered by MORE than its repeated attempts to ignore the first and fourth amendments? Roe v Wade? Please!

Also, since the Althouse "blog is an art project," http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/09/terse.html#c115970941905101450; http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/02/audible-althouse-38.html#c114104883629445739; http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/11/audible-althouse-20.html#c113197276500185774; http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/09/althouse-comments-persona.html#c112795528751952294, does Newt's observation that his peculiar approach to running for President is "all a performance art," http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/02/05/8399121/index2.htm, have any resonance? ;)